On April 24, federal judge James Nowlin of Austin, Texas, refused to enjoin a
Texas law which is being interpreted to prohibit a qualified party from choosing
a presidential candidate who had run in the presidential primary of another
party. National Committee of U.S. Taxpayers Party v Garza,
civA-96-CA-209JN.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party would like to nominate Pat Buchanan for president,
and filed the lawsuit, although Buchanan hasn't said he would accept the
nomination. Initially, Nowlin had warned that he would dismiss the case unless
he received a letter from Buchanan, stating that Buchanan wants the nomination.
In response, the party submitted a letter from Buchanan's campaign manager,
saying that Buchanan hasn't made a decision yet. This seemed to satisfy the
judge that the case is ripe, and he then ruled that the Texas law is valid. The
written opinion was released on April 30 and is ten pages long.

No court had ever before upheld any state law, which tells a qualified party
that it may not nominate someone for president who ran in the presidential
primary of another qualified party. In fact, Texas and Ohio are the only states
which have a "sore loser" law relating explicitly to presidential candidates
(also, North Carolina law bars such presidential candidates if they actively
campaign in another party's primary).

Nowlin didn't discuss the point that no state may tell presidential electors
whom to vote for. If the U.S. Taxpayers Party won the presidential election in
Texas, its candidates for presidential elector would be free to vote for Pat
Buchanan in December if they wished, even if the party had someone else listed
as its presidential candidate on the Texas ballot. Nowlin's failure to address
this point was especially telling, since the point had been argued at the
hearing, as well as in the briefs.

The party also argued that under the Supreme Court decision U.S. Term
Limits v Thornton, states have no power to bar anyone from being a
candidate for federal office, if that person meets the qualifications listed in
the U.S. Constitution.

Nowlin stated that the "sore loser" law is a "legitimate" law (implying that
congressional term limits laws are "illegitimate") and that, therefore, states
may have such a law.

Nowlin is a Reagan appointee and has a reputation for letting partisanship
influence his decisions.

U.S. History Ignored

The decision makes no reference to U.S. history, although the briefs
discussed such history. At seven presidential elections in this century,
individuals who ran in the presidential primary of one party, ran in the
November election under another banner (including Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La
Follette, and John B. Anderson). No state in the past ever barred such
candidates from the ballot under a "sore loser" law (except that Lyndon LaRouche
was barred in 1992 in Mississippi and South Dakota, although no court reviewed
his exclusion).

History is important, because it shows that presidential primaries have
existed since 1912, and for the following 80 years, it was customary for
presidential candidates to run in such primaries and still run in the general
election under other party labels, and no obvious harm was done.

Most historians tend to feel that the 1912 split in the Republican Party
(after Theodore Roosevelt was denied the Republican nomination, he formed the
Progressive Party and ran as its nominee), was good for the nation's political
health, because it enabled the Democrats to win the presidency for the first
time in 20 years, thus breaking a Republican monopoly on the White House.

Judge Nowlin also failed to acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court said in
Anderson v Celebrezze that each state has a diminished interest in
ballot access restrictions for president, since a presidential election involves
the entire nation. He also failed to acknowledge that, technically, the true
candidates in a presidential primary are candidates for delegate to the national
convention, not the presidential candidate.

Nowlin wrote that the sore loser law is needed to protect political parties,
ignoring the evidence that was presented to him, that the original Texas sore
loser law (which applied to all office other than president) was passed in the
early 1960's to stifle the development of Texas' Republican Party and to
maintain a one-party system. At that time, the Republican Party nominated by
convention, after the Democratic Party primary, and the Republicans had started
the practice of nominating candidates who had tried and failed to get the
Democratic nomination.

It is not obvious that the Republican and Democratic Parties are better off,
when dissident factions are prevented from bolting. Some observers of politics
believe that the Republican Party would be better off it Buchanan did bolt.
Pollster and political scientist Samuel Lubell documented that Harry Truman was
helped, in 1948, when the Henry Wallace Progressive Party bolted from the
Democratic Party. The Future of American Politics, by Lubell,
presents evidence that two million voters who had voted Republican in 1944,
returned to the Democratic fold in 1948, because they were fervently
anti-Communist, and the Progressive Party's campaign against Truman, gained more
votes for Truman than were lost.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party has filed an appeal with the 5th circuit. The party
is also preparing to sue Texas over its early petition deadline.

New Hampshire Governor Stephen Merrill signed HB 1161 on April 24. It creates
a new procedure, by which a group can petition to become a qualified party. The
petition itself doesn't name any candidates. It is due in early August, and if
the signatures are valid, the group can then nominate for all partisan office in
the state by convention. It takes effect next year. The Reform Party did the
work of getting this bill passed.

On April 26, Nebraska's Director of Elections ruled that nationally-organized
political parties which hold a national convention, do not need to submit a
2,500-signature petition for the party's presidential candidate, if the party is
qualified.

The law itself is internally contradictory, but in the past had been
interpreted to mean that a party which submitted a petition to qualify itself by
the August 1 deadline, also had to submit a separate petition to put its
presidential candidate on the November ballot.

On April 30, a 3-judge federal panel approved new districts for Georgia's
legislature. The legislature last month had redrawn the districts, reducing the
role of race, and those districts were approved. Johnson v Miller
III, cv1:96-040, Sou. Dist.

Jeff Lanier, Georgia Elections Director, has ruled that third party and
independent candidates for the legislature this year, can collect signatures
from anywhere in the state, regardless of the district boundaries, and no
signature will be disqualified because the signer doesn't live in the district.

HB 845, which would have made several substantial improvements in Florida
ballot access for third parties, probably will not pass. The legislature
adjourns the night of May 3 or very early on the morning of May 4, and the bill
has not advanced in the Senate. A companion bill in the Senate, SB 2284, also
seems stalled.

On April 17, a 3-judge federal court in Tallahassee overturned Florida's
congressional district lines. Johnson v Smith, 94-40025. The basis
for the decision is that race was used when the original boundaries were drawn.
Judges Roger Vinson and Maurice Paul, Reagan appointees, signed the opinion;
Joseph Hatchett, a Carter appointee, dissented.

As a result, a special section of the Florida law, making it easier for third
party and independent candidates to get on the ballot for district office in
reapportionment years, ought to apply to U.S. House candidates. Sec. 99.09651
says "In a year of apportionment", third party candidates for district office
can obtain signatures from anywhere in the state, and need 5,625 signatures each
(the formula is 1% of the population of the average district). This is far
easier than the normal Florida figure, which would have averaged 8,500 this
year. The basis for this provision is that since the district boundaries weren't
known for part of the petitioning period, it wouldn't be fair to apply the
normal requirements.

But this year, the Secretary of State says that 99.09651 doesn't apply,
because, even though the districts are being redrawn, this is not a year of
"apportionment". The Secretary of State says "apportionment" means the process
by which Congress re-allocates the number of House seats to which each state is
entitled, and that isn't happening this year.

This interpretation is absurd, since 99.09651 says "In a year of
apportionment, any candidate for Congress, state Senate, or state House of
Representatives...". Clearly, since the statute refers to state legislative
seats as well as Congress, it doesn't mean "allocation". Also, the law exists to
solve a problem in years in which normal petitioning cannot be carried on, so
why make an artificial distinction which has no bearing on the law's purpose?

The Natural Law Party, which has a strong candidate for the U.S. House in
Florida, will attempt to persuade the Secretary of State to change her mind, and
may sue if necessary.

Early this year, Reform Party petitions were rejected in Ohio, Maine and
Arkansas. Since then, Ohio and Maine have recognized that the party had enough
signatures, and the party is on the ballot. The party is now fighting in
Arkansas. It has turned in additional signatures (past the legal deadline) and
has amended its lawsuit to argue that the January petition deadline is
unconstitutional. Citizens to Establish A Reform Party in Arkansas v
Priest, 96-cv-185. The party also filed a lawsuit in state court over
whether its original petition had enough valid names.

Judge William Wilson, who had the case, has disqualified himself because his
law clerk signed the party's petition. Judge George Howard, a Carter appointee,
now has the case.

1. Minnesota: Both sides are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear
McKenna v Twin Cities New Party, the 8th circuit lawsuit which was
won earlier by the New Party.

On April 2, Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson signed SB 2720, which legalizes
fusion. However, the law states that if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the 8th
circuit decision, the law is automatically repealed.

2. New Mexico: On April 2, the Green Party filed a lawsuit in federal
court to legalize fusion. Green Party of NM v Gonzales, 96-cv-439.
The case was assigned to Judge Bruce Black, a Clinton appointee who, on April
15, refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the law which bars fusion.

3. Pennsylvania: On March 28 there was a hearing in the 3rd circuit in
Patriot Party v Allegheny County, 95-3385, over whether the state
can constitutionally let major parties cross-endorse, but deny the same
treatment to qualified minor parties. Judges were Max Rosenn, a Nixon appointee
who seemed predisposed in favor of the Patriot Party; Morton Greenberg, a Reagan
appointee who seemed predisposed to uphold the law; and Jane Roth, a Bush
appointee who seemed unreadable.

1. Alaska:(See also this update.) the
Republican Party will file its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court by May 10, in
O'Callaghan v Ulmer, over the Alaska law which force parties to let
members of other parties vote in their primaries.

2. Colorado: On April 15, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in
FEC v Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 95-489, over
a federal campaign law which limits the amount of money a party can give to its
own candidates.

3. District of Columbia: On April 19, federal judge Thomas F. Hogan, a
Reagan appointee, struck down $100 contribution limits, which had been passed by
the voters in 1994. National Black Police Association v Board of
Elections, cv 94-1476-TFH.

4. Georgia: on April 10, the 11th circuit heard arguments in
Duke v Cleland, 95-8452, over ballot access to Georgia's
presidential primary. The panel included judges Joseph Hatchett and Albert
Henderson (Carter appointees), and Richard Mills (Reagan). They seemed somewhat
inclined to rule against the state.

5. Hawaii: on April 17, the State Supreme Court ruled that the
Libertarian Party 1994 gubernatorial candidate was properly kept off the ballot.
In Hawaii, candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor are nominated
separately at primaries, but run as a joint ticket in November. No one ran for
Lieutenant Governor in the Libertarian Party primary and the state refused to
let the party nominate one by party convention, so the gubernatorial candidate
was also barred. Hirono v Peabody, 94-0592.

6. Louisiana: on April 12, federal judge Frank Polozola ruled that
Louisiana may hold congressional elections in October, even though federal law
says they must be in November. Love v Edwards, 96-30429. Plaintiffs
will appeal.

7. Maine: On April 8, federal judge Morton Brody refused to issue an
injunction against term limits for state legislators. League of Women
Voters v Diamond, 96-0052-B.

8. Missouri: the U.S. Supreme Court is considering hearing Nixon
v Carver, 95-1258, a case involving $100 contribution limits. The 8th
circuit had struck down the limits. The case was on the Supreme Court conference
on March 29, but the Court was unable to decide on that day whether to hear the
case; the matter is still pending.

9. New York: on March 12, the 2nd circuit ruled that plaintiffs
(including a Democratic Congressional nominee) lack standing to challenge the
current system of campaign finance. Albanese v FEC, 95-6099. An
appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is planned. The decision was signed by Judges
Amalya Kearse (Carter appointee), J. Daniel Mahoney (Reagan), and Fred Parker
(Clinton).

New York (2): the Republican Party has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
reverse the decision of the 2nd circuit, which struck down Republican Party
ballot access rules for the presidential primary. New York Republican
Party v Rockefeller, 95-1468.

10. Virginia: on April 16, federal judge Richard Williams dismissed a
case filed by the chair of the Republican Party, which sought to bar the state's
open Republican primary for U.S. Senate this year. Marshall &
McSweeney v Meadows, 3:96-cv-208. The judge stated that the party should
have been a co-plaintiff. He also noted that the party itself had chosen to hold
a 1996 primary (it could have chosen to use a convention).

1. Alabama: Four bills were introduced this year, to repeal last
year's tripling of the number of signatures needed for new parties to get on the
ballot. However, the legislature adjourned without even giving the bills a
committee hearing.

2. Iowa: HF 2387 would have let minor parties use stand-in candidates
on their petitions, for any office. Although the bill passed both houses, the
Senate attached a campaign finance provision to the bill, which the House
refused to accept; so the bill died on May 1.

The Iowa Director of Elections had already said that presidential stand-ins
were permitted, but she had sought to bolster this opinion by placing it in the
law.

3. Maryland: SB 330, which would have drastically improved Maryland
ballot access for third party and independent candidates, was defeated in the
House on April 3, 62-74. The bill will be re-introduced next year.

House Republicans supported it 29-12, whereas Democrats opposed it 62-33,
with 5 Democrats not voting.

4. West Virginia: HB 4759, by Representative Mary Compton, and HB
4772, by Representative Peggy Miller, would have eased ballot access procedures
for new party and independent candidates, but they never received a hearing and
the legislature has adjourned.

SB 1887 passed the Illinois Senate on March 28 and is now in the House Rules
Committee. It would close a loophole which has helped third party and
independent candidates in the past. Under current law, any petition is deemed to
be valid, unless it is challenged. Therefore, it has been possible for petitions
with far fewer signatures than are legally required, to be acceptable, if no one
bothered to challenge them. But the bill would automatically invalidate
petitions which do not have enough signatures. The Illinois Libertarian Party is
fighting the bill in the House.

On April 4, Virginia Governor George Allen signed SB 637 into law. Virginia
requires parties to certify the names of their presidential and v-p candidates
no later than 74 days before the general election (Aug. 23). However, the
Democratic convention is August 26-29.

SB 637 provides for a 68 day deadline, but only for 1996, and only for
qualified parties which had already announced their national convention date
before March 1, 1996. The Reform Party gets no benefit from the bill, since it
hadn't set its convention date by March 1.

"FULL PARTY REQ." is a procedure by which a new party can qualify before it
chooses candidates; not every state has such a procedure. "Maybe On" for Reform
means there is a qualified party which may affiliate itself with the Reform
Party. * -- entry changed since last issue.

Socialist Equality has 14,000 in Michigan. American is on in Utah.
Prohibition is on in Tennessee and has 100 in Utah. Charles Collins (indp.) has
100 in California. * -- entry changed since last issue. Green column
includes all parties which support Ralph Nader, including Pacific Party in
Oregon and Labor Party in Wyoming.

The Prudence, Action, Results Party is a fully-qualified party in Louisiana,
but no one ran in its primary for party office, at the primary in March 1996.
Therefore, it has no legal officers, and it cannot arrange for state meetings
and it cannot nominate candidates for presidential elector.

The party became qualified in November 1992 because its presidential
candidate, Ross Perot, polled over 5% of the vote. It was the only third party
that ever enjoyed "qualified" status in Louisiana, since 1972.

Fourteen states print a party logo on ballots (a logo is a picture; the
purpose of a logo on ballots is to help voters who can't read). The Republican
Party logo in seven states is an eagle. The Democratic Party logo in New Mexico
is an eagle. The Reform Party in New Mexico is also using an eagle for its logo.
In the other logo states, the Reform Party hasn't decided what its logo will be,
but it would like to use an eagle in every logo state.

The Reform Party didn't turn in any signatures to be a qualified party in
Hawaii, South Dakota and Wyoming. Instead, the party plans to qualify its
presidential candidate as an independent in those states. Also, in Hawaii, it is
possible that the Best Party (which is a ballot-qualified party formed in 1994
by former Honolulu Mayor Frank Fasi) might affiliate with the Reform Party. In
Tennessee, where the deadline for a new party petition has passed, the Reform
Party will continue circulating the party petition and use it to qualify for the
1998 election; for 1996 it will use the independent candidate procedure.

The Reform Party's vice-presidential stand-in candidates are Carl Owenby in
some states, and James Campbell in other states. The party still hasn't decided
for certain when its national convention will be held. Most observers of the
party assume that Perot will be the party's actual presidential candidate.
Former Congressman Tim Penny of Minnesota, and former Governor Lowell Weicker of
Connecticut, have indicated that will not seek the party's nomination.

The Natural Law Party turned in 17,000 signatures several months ago to gain
ballot status in Alabama. At that time, the requirement was 12,020 signatures.
Elections officials took so long to check the signatures, that by the time the
job was done, the requirement had changed to 36,060 signatures, as a result of
the Justice Department's March 22 decision to approve the signature increase.

Alabama says that the party is short 2,400 valid signatures. Although there
is time to get more signatures, the state says that since the party didn't
complete its petition before the requirement changed, now it is subject to the
36,060-signature requirement. The party plans to sue, citing several
uncontradicted court precedents that it violates due process for a state to
increase the signature requirement in the middle of the petitioning period.

An outstanding bill was introduced into Congress in 1985, 1987, 1989 and
1993, to outlaw restrictive ballot access laws in federal elections, for third
party and independent candidates. Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan)
introduced it the first three times, and Congressman Tim Penny (D-Minnesota)
introduced it the last time. Penny is no longer in Congress and Conyers is no
longer interested in the bill. Third party activists tried and failed to find a
sponsor last year.

Two 1996 Republican congressional nominees, Ron Paul of Texas and Jim Fay of
California, have each indicated a willingness to sponsor the bill, if elected.
Other major party candidates for Congress should also be asked if they would
sponsor or co-sponsor such a bill. For a copy of the 1993 version of the bill,
send a SASE to B.A.N.

Charles Collins, the Georgia conservative who ran for president in Republican
presidential primaries and who then declared as an independent presidential
candidate, has chosen a vice-presidential running mate. She is Rosemary Giumarra
of Porterville, California.